Analysis Of The Rules Of Evidence Of Private Lending Case

Now civil legal relationship lending has its own unique properties and characteristics, such as the emergence of non-natural persons of both lenders and borrowers but mostly the credit lending, private lending to contract type and style have to co-exist, a large amount of private lending more money to transfer and delivery especially in the case of private lending hidden kinds of causal relationship to the judge referee of cases to achieve "case Closed things" social effects caused difficulty, coupled with the judge in making any judgment necessarily with the subjective perception and experience, the different co-contracting embarrassment may occur. Then the other hand the fact that the existing rules of evidence of civil procedure, the judge and the parties in the collection of evidence cross, the burden of proof in cases of allocation of confusion between the judge referee was based on evidence from the back but rely too much on the use of rules of thumb, etc. and so on, these are the result of private lending cases justice can not completely let one of the reasons social convincing.Judicial practice for private lending cases, although has been carried out to improve the current fact-finding rules actively trying, but the fact that the current rules are too principle of identification is an indisputable fact. Supreme People’s Court as implemented by June 23, 2015, "to hear the case of private lending applicable law Issues" Although from the jurisdiction of the Litigation Subject Qualification private lending cases reviewed, the legal relationship under review, evidence collection, burden of proof, presumed facts of the case and other aspects of the facts of the case finds that private lending made a refined, complement, but in the specific practice of operation, especially in the proof of links, and not confusing situation resolved before trial.In view of this combined with practical realities of trial practice in private lending cases applicable rules of evidence, which summed up a series of problems actually exist, a certain degree of reason analysis, and finally its own proposals countermeasures to enhance the judicial capacity of judges, promote the further improvement of civil evidence legislation.This paper describes the following four aspects: The first part, an overview of private lending case and the applicable rules of evidence, I read the last three years a number of court civil court investigation report on the case of private lending, private lending summed up the basic situation of the case hearing, and then placing it in the context of the law of evidence analysis of its characteristics, the basic theory and summarizes the current private lending cases apply the rules of evidence. The second part mainly include the existing rules of evidence and the case to private lending practices conflict with the collision, according to the author prove links, respectively, from the evidence, cross-examination, certification stage starting to collect a large number of instruments on the basis of the referee, to ask questions. The third part, traceable back to the roots, the author mainly from the legislative, judicial two levels, the foregoing analysis theory and practice of conflict causes, the legislative level, including the absence of substantive law, the concept of substantive law is more important than the concept of procedural law, judicial level judges and the parties are divided into angle angle, including the former rule of thumb is not operating system, are unable to exercise the right to Explain, lack of understanding abstract rules of evidence, the latter including the conduct of the parties defect, contrary to the principle of good faith, lack of proper rules of evidence and the right to participate in questioning authority. The fourth part, as the end result of the whole article, the author from four aspects perfect private lending cases, rules of evidence, namely, to improve the existing rules of evidence collection, evidence clearly demonstrated that three types of force, improve the distribution of the burden of proof rules, improve the rule of thumb to use mechanism.